📢 App Version 1.99 is rolling out now (1/5)
With every update, we’re aiming to make the Internet less toxic, more fun, and more in your control.
• 3 minute videos!
• A separate request inbox for DMs from unknown users
• Mute accounts more quickly
Yeah there’s no good reason for a limit. Having no character limit doesn’t stop people from making short posts if they want. If they don’t want long posts taking up half the page, then they should just hide the rest of the text behind a ‘see more’ prompt once it goes over 300 characters.
On a platform like Bluesky I can kinda understand if they limited replies to posts to 300 characters, so that people don’t get walls of text in their inboxes but the original top post should be unlimited IMO.
Bluesky aims to be a Microblogging, although its protocol can be used for other types of social networks. They may increase that limit a bit, but the fact that there is no character limit is more likely to be found in another social network that uses the protocol that Bluesky does.
I think the idea that forced brevity is an important component of microblogging is mistaken. Low friction to post, minimal formatting, and (optionally) collapsed long posts in feeds all encourage short posts without requiring them.
It might have served more of a purpose when Twitter launched because people weren’t in the habit of short text posts at the time, and because Twitter supported posting via SMS.
I think the original point was to facilitate a noisy town square feeling. In that setting, you don’t have several paragraphs to get your point across, you need to condense your thought to a couple sentences or you’ll get lost in the sea of other voices. You bring handouts (links) and something to show (images) and that’s it.
There is a chance that I just don’t get microblogging. I’ve always felt that short character limits encourage people to make bad points that resonate emotionally but fall apart when thought through, and to yell at people they disagree with rather than being thoughtful.
Yeah there’s no good reason for a limit. Having no character limit doesn’t stop people from making short posts if they want. If they don’t want long posts taking up half the page, then they should just hide the rest of the text behind a ‘see more’ prompt once it goes over 300 characters.
On a platform like Bluesky I can kinda understand if they limited replies to posts to 300 characters, so that people don’t get walls of text in their inboxes but the original top post should be unlimited IMO.
Bluesky aims to be a Microblogging, although its protocol can be used for other types of social networks. They may increase that limit a bit, but the fact that there is no character limit is more likely to be found in another social network that uses the protocol that Bluesky does.
I think the idea that forced brevity is an important component of microblogging is mistaken. Low friction to post, minimal formatting, and (optionally) collapsed long posts in feeds all encourage short posts without requiring them.
It might have served more of a purpose when Twitter launched because people weren’t in the habit of short text posts at the time, and because Twitter supported posting via SMS.
I think the original point was to facilitate a noisy town square feeling. In that setting, you don’t have several paragraphs to get your point across, you need to condense your thought to a couple sentences or you’ll get lost in the sea of other voices. You bring handouts (links) and something to show (images) and that’s it.
There is a chance that I just don’t get microblogging. I’ve always felt that short character limits encourage people to make bad points that resonate emotionally but fall apart when thought through, and to yell at people they disagree with rather than being thoughtful.